Would you say that is unique of God, or does that purpose extend to his creation, since we also have the ability to create, albeit not quite as impressively?

Okay, thanks for that.

"If I kill you and take your money, then that is good for me" - how exactly are you defining good? In what way is harming another person and taking their material possessions good for you? Because it brings you temporary satisfaction? How might temporary satisfaction (by meeting external needs) compare to unconditional happiness (requiring only your will)?
The way I look at it, this demonstrates a lack of awareness of what good is, because you have made goodness (& thus happiness) conditional upon actualising your own desires, rather than being good simply to be good.

"If I get caught, that's bad for me"
Why? Because you fear punishment? So your form of morality originates from fear rather than love?
Virtues of man emphasise empathy, kindness and compassion.
Thus, a virtuous man is empathetic, kind and compassionate.
To follow, do you consider yourself a virtuous man?
Or does your understanding of good only work if it fulfils your desires?

If so, isn't your form of morality worth reconsidering?

I don't think it could be classified as a morally good decision as it was based on a false pretence of goodness. The criterion by which you are defining goodness appears to be self-centred and simply to meet one's own base-ends, where the only thing making you a 'good' person is fear of punishment.
Albeit a common human trait, that doesn't seem very moral to me. If you're defining 'what is good' by 'what is best suited to my own self-interests', then why have laws and codes of morality to begin with?

I think more than hearing the sound, the phenomena is more of an expectation to hear it or more a feeling that we've heard it. The large objects jumping and landing and the consequent shock-waves that would follow are some way or another conveyed in the illusion, and so the noise is perhaps tailored in the brains attempt at filling in the gaps.

I've got to admit, Santa's been alive for a good two-hundred years, maybe more.
The only sufficient explanation is that he can regenerate, so he must be a time-lord.
Instead of a sonic screwdriver maybe he's got a sonic slingshot so he can deliver presents through people's chimneys??
It's all hypothetical at this point.

I like your ideas. Interesting that you reached the conclusion this conundrum was in some way similar to the omnipotence/rock question, as I thought the same thing when contemplating the idea.
Personally, I like to understand natural causality somewhat under the principle of the Tao as portrayed by the Tao te Ching, as a universal quality of all things which manifests in form & structure and thus gives rise to function, without really having to be a deity altogether. In this sense, the Tao could be equal to the cause(r) in the causal chain as it is to Nature, the effect.

We define the process of nature under a system of sciences, and we use number to interpret the findings of such sciences and predict future outcomes. But if the process of nature is equivalent to the Tao, then all we're establishing in science is a human perception-based empirical angle at what is essentially perceptually ineffable. What I really like about the Tao te Ching is the fact that it was written approximately ~2600 years ago and yet it manages to capture a philosophy which hadn't been properly conceived in the West until the 17th century.

The whole principle of the Tao is that it expresses itself in the most simple of ways, perhaps it just so happens that when we conceive of many simple things working together, it all seems very complex.
However, the underlying simplicity of natural processes is what gives nature/Tao it's thorough effectiveness in causing an effect, like rolling a ball down a hill. It's very simple, but in order to translate concept into symbol, it becomes increasingly difficult to do so the more simple processes are involved. Reminds me of the saying "A picture tells a thousand words", well perhaps a process tells ten-thousand.

Just experimenting with thought, though I have to admit this point of view is of particular interest to myself.

The present is a pretty big gift.
But... does it fit in Santa's sleigh?..

Sustaining the planet for the sake of the elephants and tigers is noble and all, but it's much more important to me that we sustain the planet for the sake of humans. We are locked in a struggle for survival, against nature, in what is in many ways a zero sum competition. In order for humans to eat, many animals must die. One day we may be technologically and logistically able to take the most morally praiseworthy path without sacrificing actual human lives, but until then extending all possible moral considerations to animals leads to a breakdown of morality when survival and health dilemmas arise. — VagabondSpectre

I'd say the error here is that you still presuppose humans must live against nature to survive.
Humans are a part of nature, not apart from it. It's to our greatest interest to sustain nature because we are it. Our survival struggle is no longer a struggle to survive against nature per se, that's too primitive.
Our new struggle appears to be in clambering up the socio-economic ladder by increasing our wealth and social position, thereby establishing some amount of seeming superiority over another, but isn't that primitive too in relation to the big picture?
So what is morality within our context?
The phrase "What is normal to the spider is chaos to the fly." comes to mind.

The real value of my moral approach is that it is very clear from the outset regarding the "subjective" element of moral judgments: nuanced and subjective conceptions of "goodness" are less persuasive and therefore secondary to a specific set of basic values/desires which are nearly universal to all humans (and most animals too). The desire to go on living, the desire to be free and free from strife, and to pursue happiness (in Locke's sense). — VagabondSpectre

I like this. I would agree there are some values/desires which are virtually universal to humans and most if not all animals, and I think if anything this highlights the commonality of different organisms, and despite their different context, a sense of universality.

What makes pursuing something that does not currently exist in yourself futile though? Humans have achieved much. — VagabondSpectre

The point is that it wouldn't exist in yourself. That's the problem.
Humans having 'achieved much' has done little but increase the problem of trying to satisfy everyone.
Let's say satisfaction and true happiness are two different things.
We are satisfied when our survival needs are met, when we achieve something, or when we crack a joke and someone laughs.
We have a choice, however, to be truly happy. We can choose true happiness over mere satisfaction.
I think Bruce Lee said it best: "Be happy, but never satisfied."
We must be mindful, however, of what it is we consider satisfactory.
If satisfaction doesn't equate with moral goodness, then we are met with a dilemma
It's not all about humans, y'know? After all, we are some insignificant speck of dust spread amongst trillions of billions of other specks of dust in a vast cosmic abyss, why should we have all the answers?

Life and liberty are dependent on external sources, and they are both required for happiness. So in many ways, no, by conforming external sources to our will we are improving our odds at achieving higher states of happiness. — VagabondSpectre

I don't extend such conditions to true happiness. True happiness is something I give myself, whereas satisfaction is something received from external things or occurrences.

Nonetheless, whatever works for you in this journey of life, my friend.

Time can be divided three ways, but only by the observer.
Past, present and future describe different present moments to different observers, depending on their relative speed and position in space/time (thanks Einstein).
Let's boil it down to present-then and present-now.

It rained on Tuesday = present-then (past).
It is raining = present-now.
It will rain on Tuesday = present-then (future).

Perhaps the subjective present moment is not 'static' as your analogy suggests but dynamic and continuous, since, according to this premise, time is a unidirectional linear collection of present moments (at least to the observer).
The subjective present therefore doesn't have a 'size' objectively, as it's experience differs for each observer.
If there exists an 'objective present', where present moment is one continuous thing rather than discrete portions of the whole, then it's size would logically be all of space and time... I think.

Attributing brute existence to a "first" cause, then, is an error of understanding. Or deliberate nonsense. And in my opinion, this error is what feeds and keeps alive organized religion that claims that god exists, in the brute sense. — tim wood

Yes I see where you're coming from.
However, the point to entertain was if potential may hold purpose (reason) without coming into actuality.
Take the First Cause out of the equation altogether.
If the potential is in essence the cause to the effect, then in the Aristotelian sense this would mean the purpose of something was it's explanation or reason for happening -- which is what science aims to establish. Rather than attacking the notion of a First Cause, I was following as to whether it gives that thing (or process) it's properties. If this view of the Cause suggests it is an idea, explanation or reason, is it defined only within it's relation to the Effect or is it a 'reason' in and of itself?

My aim was to outline the difference between potential and actuality.
The problem being that potential is only conceived upon having become actual, otherwise it doesn't make any sense.
The explanation for something seems to be conceived only when an effect has been caused, and so, if there was a 'First Cause', which you have reasoned the brute existence of implausible, then it would not have purpose in and of itself, but only in relation to the effect...

I'd like to ask, however, in what respect don't ideas exist?
If you mean exist as in tangible physical things then I'd agree, but surely they are something?
The potential to actuality? We share ideas, and we bring our ideas into action; to me this suggests ideas must be something, even if they don't 'exist' in the conventionally understood definition of the word.

Are neuronal transmissions a cause or effect of thought?
If a cause, what is the cause of neuronal transmissions?
In an effect, what is the cause of thought?
Consciousness? Potential energy? I sure don't know.

By being aware of what is good.

Morality has to do with human welfare - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - and you ought to be morally engaged because it will serve your own life, liberty, and happiness. You should treat others as they want to be treated because then they will likely treat you as you want to be treated. — VagabondSpectre

Whereby morality is defined within the context of human life, our welfare is not the only faculty which morality is involved.
How might your understanding suffice when within the context of another animals life?
Other than mere altruistic behaviour and fitting in to a larger whole, it begs the question as to why it is important for humans to sustain the planet outside of the context of human greed and selfishness, an expectancy that everything we give we will get back?
In the case of caring for animals and ensuring their welfare, I'd say that a purely human-oriented morality falls flat on it's face.
Even if we might conceive it as serving our own base-ends, that conception is limited by a presupposition that 'human nature' equates to no more than securing our own interests, and by fulfilling this naively accepted purpose we are somehow doing good.

Our conceptions of goodness contribute to our character.
We make actions that correspond to our character based upon our conception of goodness.
Thus, subjective morality.
We, determined by our character, make our actions within a system of morality based upon our agreed conception of goodness.
Thus a societal ideal, a political conception of 'objective morality'.
Just because we agree upon our subjective conceptions, this does not establish objectivity.

Socrates said that self-knowledge was the key to being moral, arguably because it contributes to further understanding our character and how to use it.
He said that the truly wise man knows what is good and so will do what is right, and in doing right, the truly wise man will be happy.
This means that being happy is a result of doing what is right, which is a result of knowing what is good.

I'd say the 'pursuit of true happiness' is futile, because if you are pursuing something then it does not currently exist within yourself.
If true happiness is an internal state that you desire, are you not furthering yourself from that state by conditionalising happiness on external occurrences?
If so, can you ever be truly happy unless certain conditions are met?
This, for me at least, disregards the whole idea of true happiness, and if we follow, the same can be applied to our agreed conceptions of goodness.
Find goodness within and it need not be conditioned by externals.

=)

I agree, but do good things as a result of being a good person, as opposed to aiming to do good things in spite of not being a good person.
I guess it's the partial emphasis on character over action.

The issue is whether or not tables are reducible to those molecules; whether or not "table" is a mind-independent kind. If not then the above is a category error. It's not that the table is mostly empty space; it's just that there's a lot of empty space between the particles that are causally responsible for our experience of a table. — Michael

I like this explanation.
The issue is whether or not anything we perceive can be reduced to it's component parts i.e. molecules/atoms/subatomic particles in actuality, since in order for us to conceive a table, for example, the mind must process a perception of the above in varying quantities.

Are the fundamental particles causally responsible for our experience of a table, or is it our mind which causes us to perceive such a thing?
To me it seems like we could only ascribe names/labels and therefore any human understanding to a given thing in actuality because of our minds ability to do so, paired with the limits of our sensory capacity.
This isn't to say that the 'given thing' doesn't exist independent of mind, but it is to say that any label/understanding for this thing could not exist independent of mind.

It seems that only upon observation (perception/mind), or lack of observation in some cases, can one ascribe a thing as this or that.
Therefore, I would say that a 'table' doesn't exist as such without a human's awareness of it being a table, and even though that thing might potentially exist independent of mind, it could never be conceived as such, since all that we conceive is mind-dependent.

This, I believe, is the distinction that is missing.

The other thing an external world does is it makes everything hang together. Consider perception being brute. Do you still need air when you're not aware of breathing? Is your heart still beating? Does the floor under your feet still hold you up? Is the back of your head or your brain still there? How about the eyes you see with? Do they only exist in the mirror? Does your food digest or do you just have the experience of it coming out? Why would there even be an inside full of organs when we cut them open? It's not like brute experience requires a body to breathe or digest food. It's odd that we would perceive a brain if brains aren't needed. — Marchesk

Perception is a part of our experience.
I'd define conscious perception as conscious awareness of sensory stimulation.
What we 'unconsciously perceive' is therefore sensory stimulation without conscious awareness.
Awareness appears to be the source of perception, whether we experience it consciously or not.
Let's say our 'conscious mental awareness' stimulates responses, for instance, feeling hungry; our sub-conscious mental awareness also stimulates responses in instances such as the arc reflex, maintaining our heartbeat, controlling digestion, homeostasis etc etc.
We have different levels of conscious awareness that govern our neurophysiological processes.
It is a result of such processes that we consciously and 'unconsciously' perceive our reality, and our awareness makes use of such perceptions and determines our responses.

Would a falling tree still make a noise if no one was around to hear it?
Yes.

Would anyone hear it?
No.

Would the tree be aware of it's demise?
Debatable.

I guess the question I'm asking is - what is existence without awareness of it?

Choice is at the heart of our every decision, and yet choice is governed by more than merely our free will. There are determining variables which contribute to our choices despite us freely choosing otherwise. I'm not suggesting this is a bad thing to the greater extent, just that the human mind seems to be easily led down a path which might be completely devoid of any free reasoning, as you say "to be part of the group", conforming or otherwise.
Despite an individual freely choosing differently, the need to fit-in demands willingness to follow blindly.
What is ironic is at the heart of any "first-world problem" is an underlying unsatisfactoriness, in that it seems our deeper urges are not fulfilled even when our needs and even luxuries are supplied at a whim.
So, can we ever reason freely if our choices are determined by other variables?
That's where philosophy seems to be the way out - the search for truth.
In a way akin to religion, but much more analytical and maybe a tad bit more foolproof...

What is the point of philosophy?

I agree with Marchesk's response - whether or not philosophy has a practical impact on our lives, the same can be said for many fields of interest. It seems that at the core of any philosophical problem is a 'need-to-know-solution', highlighting the curiosity of the human mind.

Philosophy, etymologically, is derived from the Greek words 'philos' meaning love and 'sophia' meaning wisdom, so (unless you didn't know already) philosophy = the love of wisdom.
In response to your question: 'what is the point in loving wisdom?' I'd respond 'why would you not?'.

Besides, philosophy is all about asking questions. It is a philosophical question to ask whether philosophy has a purpose, and that I think clearly illustrates the purpose of philosophy.

If living beings are a mishmash of particles structurally and functionally determined by genetic precursors, and different genes results in different species, then what we consider to be a trout or a turkey becomes only relative to the context in which it is coded, or genetically coded.
In reality, we don't see trout-turkeys, we discern one from the other based on their individual properties.
I.e. a trout is a fish, a turkey is a bird; they have different genetics.
But in a hypothetical sense, we can postulate such a variation in genetics.

Genes are composed of subatomic particles which contribute in different proportions to a greater whole.
It's not a stretch to assume that such a difference in conventionally observed proportion may result in an 'abnormal' or unobserved species being formed, such as with genetic mutation and so forth.
This is, after all, the principle of evolution.

However, we can also say that the ability to discern trout from turkey stems from our minds capacity to reason with our perceived observations.
Our perception doesn't quite cross the bridge between macro and micro, although it does a good job of providing us with what we need for survival.
I mean that we do not directly observe subatomic particles as wholes in and of themselves, but rather as components of the directly observed perceivable reality (objects etc).

So when we describe one thing as that thing based on it's individual properties compared to another thing with different individual properties, the properties we are describing are perceptual by-products of different proportions of quantum stuff - particle physics does a good job of grouping these singularities into a coherent system.
The point is, it just so happens that when different proportions of particles interact in a certain way with other proportions of particles of favourable characteristic, that the two coalesce and work as a single system.
Anything we consider separate from something else is only separate within the scope of human perception.

Imagine we were deprived of our sensory perception.
We couldn't see, touch, taste, hear or smell.
Without us to perceive separate bundles of quantum stuff interacting and essentially composing matter - atoms, ions and molecules, and therefore having different characteristic properties and interacting in different ways as perceptible to our senses, what would we be left with?

It's almost impossible to say, without perception to give us some grasp on what it would be.

The fact animals evolved and life exists by facilitating sensory perception and stimulus-response relationships demonstrates how a smaller fundamental building block can be replicated in an almost boundless combination of possibilities to go from what is basically simple to the infinite complexity we observe in nature and in our own thought processes.
The fact we can even conceptualise such things as a trout-turkey in a human context is itself contingent upon the relative proportions of different atoms and therefore quantum stuff that our brains and bodies are composed of.

If I could exist then a trout-turkey could too.
Note keyword 'could';
As in, if the situational variables which contributed to the formation of the cause meant that it went on to produce the effect, then the outcome would be produced.
If the genes were combined in a different way, perhaps a different outcome may result in the entertained phenomena, but this is only a possibility.

The distinction is that this is potential rather than something actually observed in reality.
If and only if the causal variables came into play that resulted in a trout-turkey actually being produced would the outcome actually happen.
Although we have not perceived trout-turkeys directly using our senses, we can entertain them as possibilities within our minds on the basis that their realism would be determined by other realised causal factors that haven't yet manifested.

As with perception, you could argue the world we perceive is limited by the sensory organs through which we perceive it, hence we as humans have access to only a small chunk of the electromagnetic spectrum or hearing a range of frequencies.
It is safe to say, however, that our empirical understanding is an accurate account for the way the world is, at least through our senses.
But hypothetically, as we are a bundle of different proportions of the same fundamental matter, is perception really an accurate account for the way the world really is?

The micro seems very different to the macro the more we examine it, and yet it is the same thing.
Is objective empirical understanding really getting anywhere if perception is limited by the subjective parameters of the sensory organs?
If it's not getting us anywhere, are we doing something wrong?
If it is getting us somewhere, where is it getting us?
Toward a subjectively sensory conception of Truth?
Or to an objective Truth that is revealed through perception?

I guess it's all mere speculation.

That doesn't mean that our math is t useful to us, just that there's nothing platonic about it. It's a device like any other we invent.

Personally I don't cling to the idea that number is 'Platonic' or even that it exists independent of mind, I'd agree with you in saying that it is a device of our own invention, and therefore there is nothing overly surprising about it's 'correspondence' to observed truth.
I think it is quite amazing we have developed such an intricate system for modelled understanding and utilised it in the way we have.

Proportion (as opposed to number) describes "a part or share in comparison to a whole", and is the fundamental basis for mathematical relationships.
It doesn't have to be Platonic or absolute, and it's not important that it wouldn't conceptually exist without our minds to process it, because the same can be said of any conceptual thought or even the standard conception of reality we refer to as delineating perceived Truth.
Proportion is a measurable relationship, and number is a means of conceptualising proportion.

Both may be conceptions of the human mind, and therefore contingent upon the mind rather than necessary without it, but dismissing the marvels of human conceptual thought on the grounds that it is merely an insignificant byproduct of our experience is a perspective that heavily overlooks the intrinsic value of conceptual thought as an essential, functional and referable tool that is one of our greatest assets.

We all have choices. Whether or not we are content with good conversations with friends or we must travel to some far off lands (and further pollute the environment in the process) are individual choices.

I agree with your premise, it is said that you can lead a horse to water but not make it drink.
Our preferences are subjective, and our choices are unique.
Therefore what brings one person happiness may differ for another, but while the means may be different the end will be the same.

We are manipulated voluntarily.

Participating and consciously participating are two entirely different things, like seeing and observing.
We may voluntarily conform to a manipulated system, but the fact that we are also free not to conform to it isn't a fact that solves the problem, but one that illustrates it.
Our freedom to think and act is wonderful, and we should be grateful we have such liberty.
As a token of respect for our freedom, it makes sense that we should use it well.
Why then do we as consumers continue to abuse our freedom in utilising the planet's resources?
Is it because we're being manipulated, or because it really does serve the highest purpose in manifesting goodness - because it doesn't seem that way.
Perhaps it's more emotionally comfortable to accept our fate rather than doing something about it, or because we're yet to come up with a better alternative that isn't founded on human greed and ignorance?

Good questions seem to be of plentiful supply, but good answers are hard to come by.

Whether our concept of number happens to be an abstraction of mind or not, our concept is derived from the perception of our environment.
Number is analytic, the absolute properties of any one number mean that there is always a predictable outcome, e.g. 5*5 = 25.
It is in this sense that we use number to predict outcomes or or objectify our observations, i.e. calculate lengths or distances, & calculate speed and force.
From this it seems, rather than self-identification, number is used in the process of identifying our externals through an internal process (e.g. counting).
The accuracy of mathematics and physics to describe material things and their processes means that our concept of number is accurate, but only as accurate as our observations.
Observable 'physics' is thereby limited by our own effective capacity to perceive physical reality.
For example, it is becoming evermore apparent in the realm of quantum physics that the mechanics of the subatomic world is much different to that which we perceive/observe directly.
Physics in and of itself, however, must work using mathematics. It's as easy as 1 + 1 = 2... supposedly.
In the quantum realm, calculations get much more complex and in some cases it becomes impossible to predict outcomes as we would expect; for instance, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
Despite the seeming unpredictability, one thing that is inherent in seemingly all things is proportion.
Whether it be in the form of quantum probability or even mass or volume, I am defining proportion as the relationship of two numerical entities in equalling a singularity.
Simply, a + 2a = 3a.
This proportion is inherent within all things that physics currently understands and can reduce to simple formula. The real problem arises in relationships we do not understand, because things don't add up when we run the arithmetic.
While number is an effective means to understand the world as far as we can observe, there is no way
to determine whether our conception of number is purely a figment of our own perception or exists objectively within reality at large, but it seems that through the bridge of our perception number is an effective way to describe reality at large, but the further we delve, the less effective number becomes.
One thing is consistent, however - proportion, where proportion is a relationship between two entities/variables.
While the world is in perpetual flux, number is absolute.
It is the relationship between absolutes that excites the state of variability.
Until again, change (function) meets constant (number).
Besides, 'numbers' by themselves aren't worth talking about. What is a number without it's relationship to other numbers? Or without it's individual proportion to a larger whole?
Self-identity has nothing to do with it.
Numbers are used to identify individualistic variables among others, such as a cat predicting it's trajectory when jumping.
It's not number how we would understand it in our model of 123456... , but number as proportion between singular entities as is the relationship between two numbers or variables that truly of interest.
Thus is the cornerstone for maths, physics, chemistry, and too biology.
Proportion either describes number or number describes proportion, but this is missing the point.
So, for all you avid sceptics: Proportion is inherent in nature. Am I wrong?

Sorry for being long drawn out and painful but I needed to go into depth.

As for the topic of physicality, 'physicality' as we describe it is contingent upon the experience of 'physicality', and 'physical' experience is determined by sensory perception.
Therefore, our understanding of 'physicality' in an objective sense is meaningless because it is contingent upon our perception to be understood within the realm of, say, physics and maths.
What is physical must be that which is an entity that undergoes physical change. Entity being, for example, photon. Physical change being for example, linear movement.
Therefore, what is 'material' is problematic, but what is 'physical' is not.
A photon is hardly material, although it does have insignificant mass.
However, a photon is involved in physical change - movement.
Therefore, a photon can be considered physical.
I'm going to leave it at this because I'd like to see some responses before I continue.